The Criterion Collection

[BTSMGL]

Originally Posted by Smegma

Depicting reality, as it is/was is 'unfortunate'?

Would you also say every crime, shooting, murder, assault, in every film is 'unfortunate' as well?

Is it 'unfortunate' that 'the N-word' was included by Mark Twain in 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' or by Harper Lee in 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?

I'm trying to understand here.

...I am not quite sure if you're being serious here or not, Smegma.

Originally Posted by Nuck Horris

It's unfortunate for BTSMGL that the entire history of the human race didn't conform to his self-created subjective moral code, that's all. He's mad and he just ain't gonna take it anymore.

Very weird that you're all attacking me for thinking movies that depict rape in a positive/humorous light are problematic. Hmmmm.

[Caseyscott]

Originally Posted by Smegma

Depicting reality, as it is/was is 'unfortunate'?

Would you also say every crime, shooting, murder, assault, in every film is 'unfortunate' as well?

Is it 'unfortunate' that 'the N-word' was included by Mark Twain in 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' or by Harper Lee in 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?

I'm trying to understand here.

Of course it's unfortunate, and that's usually the point.

[MTRodaba2468]

On a slightly different topic, a user on another forum I frequent came up with a new theory on the letters in the clue...

Long shot: the S, T and R might be in a polyamorous relationship. Poly STR. Polyester! Also, the R and the T are the ones waving, and its the husband in Polyester who is unfaithful. That's a real longshot, though. I think I'm ready for John Waters.

A long shot, indeed, but one I could get behind...

[Smegma]

Originally Posted by BTSMGL

...I am not quite sure if you're being serious here or not, Smegma.

I am 100% serious. What makes you draw a moral line in the sand over one thing but not another?

[mrjohnnyb]

My two cents:

You are all arguing the political correctness of the '80's, but do you remember some dialogue from classic '70's films, like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bigZ1fmwD-Q

[senseabove]

Originally Posted by Smegma

Depicting reality, as it is/was is 'unfortunate'?

Would you also say every crime, shooting, murder, assault, in every film is 'unfortunate' as well?

Is it 'unfortunate' that 'the N-word' was included by Mark Twain in 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' or by Harper Lee in 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?

I'm trying to understand here.

We're talking about fiction, not depicting reality. John Hughes did not make a documentary, and neither Mark Twain nor Harper Lee was writing reportage, but their fictions reflect features of the social world in which they were created, features that were selected—consciously or unconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, critically or uncritically—by the authors. You'll find plenty of people who appreciate Huckleberry Finn while acknowledging that, while period-appropriate, it's, yes, unfortunate that racism was so prevalent that giving people implicitly pejorative nicknames based on physical features over which they have no control was perfectly acceptable. We can talk about how wonderful a book Huckleberry Finn is, how clever a writer Mark Twain was, and also about the prevalence and function of racism in late-19th Century Literature from the American South (and, for that matter, why it's different from racism in early-20th Century Literature from the American South, like Harper Lee). There's also a difference between depicting racism accurately and uncritically, like Twain does, and depicting racism accurately and critically, like Lee does.

And no, no one has suggested that we make the completely illegitimate move from specific, uncritical instances of racism and sexism to condemning all depictions of all bad things ever. Nor is anyone saying Criterion shouldn't release Sixteen Candles because of any racism or sexism or that anyone else shouldn't watch it and enjoy it, by the way, though some have questioned its artistic merit and whether that warrants inclusion in the collection. It has been suggested that, if Criterion is releasing Sixteen Candles, it might be good for them to acknowledge in some way that the movie uncritically depicts racism and sexism, not so it can be avoided by "Social Justice Warriors" who want to eject it from their safe space, but so that those features of the movie can be contextualized.

Because we can still talk about racism and sexism, how it surfaces in 1980s American teen comedies, point out uncritical instances of sexism and racism and why they're a problem, still enjoy the fictions in which they occur, and still be aware that there are problems with sexism and racism beyond them.

Some of us are saying "You can't judge Sixteen Candles for its racism and sexism because of the time and context in which it was made." Others of us are saying, "Okay, but let's be aware of that context and not let it slide by without comment." That's all.




EDIT: I'm removing this line from the start of my post, because it was snarky and Smegma in a subsequent post professed that he was being serious: "I'm going to be generous and assume you weren't being facetious, so here goes:"

[KyleW]

I love all this uproar about sixteen candles when it hasn't even been confirmed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hoytereden]

Could we please move on from discussing a film that isn't officially a Criterion title yet? Thank you.

[Smegma]

Senseabove

That's a lot of text. Unfortunately for your effort, I wasn't talking about 'Sixteen Candles'. I was questioning BTSMGL's moral outrage over the utterance of the word 'f*ggot', by a teenager, in the 1987 movie "Monster Squad".

[mrjohnnyb]

Sorry, here's my actual take on this:

As a cinephile, I have been always drawn to films from the American late sixties through mid-seventies. There is a truth, an honesty, and yes, a reckless abandonment of morality in film.

And I say "BRAVO!" to that!

When American film evolved from the studio system, a great change occurred with film content. It is why Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is a great film to me! Ironically, this whole debate is similar to the plot line of The People Vs. Larry Flynt. Here are the words of Alan Isaacman, as portrayed by Edward Norton:

Alan Isaacman: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard a lot today, and I'm not gonna go back over it, but you have to go into that room and make some decisions. But before you do, there's something you need to know. I am not trying to suggest that you should like what Larry Flynt does. I don't like what Larry Flynt does, but what I do like is the fact that I live in a country where you and I can make that decision for ourselves. I like the fact that I live in a country where I can pick up Hustler magazine and read it, or throw it in the garbage can if that's where I think it belongs.

[senseabove]

Originally Posted by Smegma

Senseabove

That's a lot of text. Unfortunately for your effort, I wasn't talking about 'Sixteen Candles'. I was questioning BTSMGL's moral outrage over the utterance of the word 'f*ggot', by a teenager, in the 1987 movie "Monster Squad".

And I was answering the implicit question the you later clarified to be "What makes you draw a moral line in the sand over one thing but not another?" That question is not referencing a specific movie.

But replace "racism and sexism in 1980s American teen comedies" with "homophobia in 1980s horror" and all of my points remain the same.


Also, my response was 407 words. If you can't bother to read 407 words that were a genuine effort to take you and your question seriously, why are you even asking the question?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Nuck Horris

It's unfortunate for BTSMGL that the entire history of the human race didn't conform to his self-created subjective moral code, that's all. He's mad and he just ain't gonna take it anymore.

I don't see that he's doing that at all. He's not ignoring the context, nor expecting people in other times and places to be exactly like him. He was explaining what he disliked about a particular film and why. Doesn't he have the right to do that?

As I've said before, there are any number of films that make for an uncomfortable viewing for me because of one element or another, but that doesn't mean I disregard the context, or the film as a whole.

For example, I'm a big fan of John Ford's films. One of his most praised films is The Quiet Man, a film that I have a hard time watching these days because of the way Sean (John Wayne) treats Mary (Maureen O'Hara). I completely understand the context of the time and place in which the film was made, and the time and place that the film depicts. I don't call the film misogynist, I don't claim that Ford was misogynist, and I don't call anyone who unreserved love the film misogynists. I still reserve the right to say that I don't like that aspect of the film.

Another example: Fred Astaire's blackface scene in Swing Time. I'm willing to excuse it because of the context of when the film was made, and especially because Astaire did it as a tribute to Bill Robinson, a dancer that he greatly admired. But again, I still reserve the right to say that that part of an otherwise terrific film makes me uneasy.

[Smegma]

Originally Posted by senseabove

And I was answering the implicit question the you later clarified to be "What makes you draw a moral line in the sand over one thing but not another?" That question is not referencing a specific movie.

But replace "racism and sexism in 1980s American teen comedies" with "homophobia in 1980s horror" and all of my points remain the same.


Also, my response was 407 words. If you can't bother to read 407 words that were a genuine effort to take you and your question seriously, why are you even asking the question?

Well, number one, I wasn't asking you. Unless you are also BTSMGL? It was a direct question to an individual user.

[mja345]

The ultimate scene, in a great film, that would never fly today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcNGYRKBfHA

[senseabove]

Originally Posted by Smegma

Well, number one, I wasn't asking you. Unless you are also BTSMGL? It was a direct question to an individual user.

Oh, well, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to not engage any of the substance of the answer I gave to your question. So if BTSMGL posts that he agrees with what I said, I look forward to a considered response from you.

[xxnomad]

hmmm no hint for the naked prey upgrade i've been waiting for?

not exactly on anyones most wanted but since there's a blu in the uk i figure this one should be an easy one to do.

[PipesDonatello]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I wonder why the bride in the drawing has no hands..

No hands, means no finger prints. No finger...prints..S Bride....Princess Bride

Boom

(I know it's for Marry S, for the Marseilles trilogy, but I think it could also be for something else)

Hopefully it's Beetlejuice. I mean if Sixteen Candles is coming out, why not?

[bigbadwoppet]

If the guesses have been accurate so far, I don't think I'll be spending a lot of money with these guys this year.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

If the guesses have been accurate so far, I don't think I'll be spending a lot of money with these guys this year.

New Years drawing clues makes up a very small fraction of their releases for the year (if they even come out this year), ,so it's hardly indicative of anything whatsoever.

[MifuneFan]

Just to put it into actual data. Last year's drawing had approximately 20 spines hinted at (see below), give or take a few. According to ShellOilJunior's counts, there were 69 total spines released for 2016. So that means the NYD drawing only made up about 29% of the releases for last year.

These are the ones I saw in the 2016 drawing.

Lone Wolf and Cub
McCabe and Mrs Miller
Chimes at Midnight
Road Trilogy
The New World
Fantastic Planet
Exterminating Angel
Dr Strangelove
The Last Chrysanthemum
Here Comes Mr Jordan
Bicycle Thieves
Easy Rider
Phoenix
Naked Island
Kennedy Films docs
A Taste of Honey
The Squid and the Whale
Valley of the Dolls
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls
The Kid